Laabs v. Nor-Son, Inc.

Background

Brian Laabs brought claims against Nor-Son, Inc. after Nor-Son terminated his employment effective October 25, 2019. The complaint alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and interference with benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Laabs sought wage and benefit losses and emotional-distress damages. He described those damages as “garden variety” emotional distress and said he had not been diagnosed with or treated for mental-health issues and did not claim a physical injury caused by Nor-Son’s conduct.

Nor-Son asserted, among other defenses, failure to mitigate damages, that Laabs was not a qualified person with a disability, and after-acquired evidence. The after-acquired evidence defense concerns later-discovered conduct that an employer claims would independently have led to termination; if established, it can limit damages.

Laabs’s Motion for a Protective Order

Laabs sought to block two subpoenas to his former employer, Doran Companies. The subpoenas sought testimony and documents about his employment, termination, discipline, discrimination complaints, medical restrictions or disabilities, accommodation requests, and leave requests. The court held that Nor-Son’s assertion of the after-acquired evidence defense did not give it unlimited access to Laabs’s past employment records. But the court found that Laabs’s testimony about his departure from Doran created a legitimate issue about the reason for that termination and what Nor-Son knew when it hired him.

The court permitted Doran to produce a witness about Laabs’s termination. Doran also had to testify about discipline only if it was at least part of the basis for that termination. Doran had to provide testimony about Laabs’s dates of employment, job titles, duties, and responsibilities because Laabs did not object to that topic. Testimony about discrimination complaints was limited to complaints similar to Laabs’s claims involving the Family and Medical Leave Act or disability discrimination. Testimony about medical restrictions and accommodations was limited to issues involving Laabs’s knees; Nor-Son could not ask about other medical conditions.

The court similarly allowed documents about Laabs’s dates of employment and positions, termination-related performance or discipline, relevant discrimination or Family and Medical Leave Act complaints, knee-related accommodations or inability to perform job duties, and wage records because Laabs sought front pay. The court granted the protective order as to the remaining subpoena requests because they were not relevant or proportional to the case.

Nor-Son’s Motion to Compel

Nor-Son sought employment records from Laabs’s past, present, and prospective employers, mental-health records, and additional testimony about Laabs’s severance agreement with Doran. The court declined to treat Laabs’s objections to two discovery requests as waived even though his responses were five days late, finding good cause and no stated prejudice to Nor-Son.

The court held that Nor-Son could obtain Laabs’s past and post-termination wage records because they were relevant to damages and mitigation. It denied the request for pre-Nor-Son employment records about performance, discipline, and reasons for leaving employment, except for the limited Doran discovery already authorized. The court found that Nor-Son had not identified a specific basis for seeking comparable information from other earlier employers.

The court also held that Laabs’s post-termination job-search efforts were relevant to mitigation. Nor-Son could obtain authorizations directed to prospective employers identified by Laabs, but only for applications and supporting materials, resumes, and employment offers. The authorizations could not mention that the requests were for ongoing litigation.

Because Laabs sought emotional-distress damages under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court allowed Nor-Son to obtain mental-health records relevant to possible causes of that distress other than the termination. The authorized period ran from five years before October 25, 2019, through the present. The records had to concern mental-health treatment, including treatment for chemical dependency by a medical provider; the authorization could not cover every medical condition or have no time limit.

The court permitted Nor-Son to depose Laabs again about the Doran severance agreement because his lawyer had instructed him not to answer questions about it. The second deposition could address only that agreement and could not become an opportunity for unrelated questions about Doran. The court denied Nor-Son’s request for attorney’s fees, concluding that the need for the second deposition and resulting fees was partly self-inflicted because Nor-Son had declined to use the court’s informal process during the original deposition.

Disposition

The court ordered that Laabs’s motion for a protective order was granted in part and denied in part, and Nor-Son’s motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part, consistent with the order. If the parties could not agree on authorization language, they had to submit proposed language and supporting letters by May 11, 2021. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.